The People Have Spoken

College Confidential Community
21

<p>Ah, ^^^ the voice of reason. </p>

<p>I have NO problem with "believers" (Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists...) as long as they do not impose/legislate their views on me. </p>

<p>Please, do not tell me that this is not happening, because it is. Why is abortion, for the most part, illegal? Why do abortion clinics get bombed? </p>

<p>For me, these are not just 'issues' they are expressions of an individual's freedom to choose. I do not LIKE abortion (no one really does), but I feel a woman has a right to choose for herself. I use abortion as the example, but there are many other instances of, for the most part, evangelicals imposing their morals on the rest of America. (Stem-Cell, Iraq, Prayer in schools, Creationism taught in schools, gay marriage)</p>

22

<p>You (Fides!) may wonder why what I discuss above is wrong. It is wrong because this is the United States, and if we can't get freedom right, who can?</p>

23

<p>"Lucky me, they happen to be the same morals and values that Western civilization -- including America -- has lived and flourished under for 2,000 years."
Yeah, lucky you... because your thinking was done in complete isolation from that culture.
By the way... the 2,000 years are a complete exageration.
Not so long ago (compared to the 2000 years you are refering too) black people in america were slaves.
Not so long ago, countries were ruled by absolute kings, and people had no right to chose.
Not so long ago, women had no saying on anything.
Not so long ago, Christians had an institution whose purpouse was, among other things, to burn Jews and Muslims to death.</p>

<p>You believe good and evil are absolute things. Still, there are many people who believe the same thing, but whose concepts or good and evil are different. For example, the Bible say we should kill anyone who works on a Saturday... do you want death penalty for anyone who violates that?</p>

<p>Once again, the "affect for the worse" is just stating a fact over which there are many possible views on as if yours were the only possible way to see things. Oh, you accused me of doing that, as if that was a bad thing. I agree it's a bad thing, but now, you are saying your morale, your idea of what's good and what's bad, a thing over clearly there are many possible views, is the only valid one, and the only one that should be taken into account.
Yet, you previously stated that doing that is wrong. I guess is only wrong when someone does it defending ideas you don't share, but it's OK when you use it...</p>

24

<p>This is such a fun fight to watch!!!! =D</p>

<p>Okay I'm done being a sideline idiot. Anyway. Has anyone considered the possibility of, uh, a nice peaceful solution, agreeing to disagree, moving on, and addressing... the fact that Social Security is going to drain us (the young'uns) dry? And that a few dozen large corporations, a couple hundred lawyers, and two or three pro-Israel groups together basically own our government (through campaign finance)? And a million other things? Eeeek.</p>

25

<p>Bah, Republicans and Democrats both suck. Libertarians all the way.</p>

26

<p>"The Democrats don't represent other religious people, either. What they represent is Godless heathens and moral relativists."</p>

<p>Moral relativism IS wrong. However, your assertion that the only alternative is Judeo-Christian morality is ridiculous. Have you READ the Old Testament?</p>

<p>"Godless heathens," eh? Do you understand what makes this country great? It is the very fact that a Christian moral puritan and, say, a Satan-worshiping white supremacist, are accorded equal rights under the law. You've forgotten what liberty and religious freedom truly are.</p>

27

<p>"Okay I'm done being a sideline idiot. Anyway. Has anyone considered the possibility of, uh, a nice peaceful solution, agreeing to disagree, moving on, and addressing..."
Oh, that wouldn't be half as fun... I don't see the point...</p>

<p>"Moral relativism IS wrong. However, your assertion that the only alternative is Judeo-Christian morality is ridiculous. Have you READ the Old Testament?"</p>

<p>Saying that there are multiple alternatives to what morality is right (that's what saying that a certain morality isn't the only alternative actually is) effectively IS moral relativism.</p>

28

<p>"Saying that there are multiple alternatives to what morality is right (that's what saying that a certain morality isn't the only alternative actually is) effectively IS moral relativism."</p>

<p>Saying that there are many different value systems is not moral relativism. It is fact. Moral relativism is basically the idea that there is no universal standard for right and wrong. I was saying that one can believe in absolute moral truths without being Christian, or even religious.</p>

29

<p>"Have you READ the Old Testament?"</p>

<p>I read the Old Testament every day. But, as a Christian, the New Testament is where the doctrines of my faith are found. Christians keep the OT because Jesus Christ was a Jew and thus Judaism, before the coming of Christianity, was the truth (thus, it isn't anymore). But the Mosaic teachings of the OT that usually cause alarm in our day -- stoning people, for instance -- were nixed with the coming of Christ. In a way, it could be said that while Christians read the OT, we read it from a distance. It is much less a collection of Christian books as it is a collection of Jewish books -- obviously, I would think. In short, just because the OT says terrible sinners should be stoned, and Christians read the OT, in no way does this mean that this teaching is a part of the Christian faith and morality. It absolutely isn't. Any educated person should know this. Therefore, using the OT as a weapon with which to attack Christianity or Christian morality is both ignorant and ridiculous (I'm not saying this is what you're doing, but I do come across this activity more than I should). </p>

<p>By "Judeo-Christian morality" I don't mean Old Testament Hebrew morality; I mean the morality of Christianity, which sprung from Judaism. Personally, I don't advocate the morality of Judaism alone. I'm not a Jew.</p>

30

<p>I find it interesting that many Christians only shun the Old Testament when it becomes inconvenient for them. What about the Ten Commandments? Or any of the other stories? Do you also ignore Genesis and Exodus?</p>

<p>The New Testament may be less horrible on its face, but it doesn't change the fact that Paul promotes misogyny, for example. Or, well, ALL OF REVELATIONS, in which God reverts back to Old Testament mode, capriciously butchering BILLIONS of people.</p>

31

<p>Listen, I'm just trying to explain something about Christianity to you. I'm not "shunning" the Old Testament, but telling you honestly about the Christian relationship with the text. Things such as stoning people (or doing any kind of violence to anyone) are simply not a part of Christianity. We follow the teachings of Christ, not Moses. Certain things in the OT Jesus intructed us to keep, but a lot he told us to let go of. What the coming of Christ represented, fundamentally, is change. Change from the old ways.</p>

<p>You speak confidently of things which you know nothing about. For instance, where in the letters of St. Paul is misogyny promoted? Show me. I won't even get into the Revelation of St. John, which is a highly complicated and controversial piece of apocalyptic literature that, in any case, should not be interpreted literally but symbolically and metaphorically. Many theologians believe that Revelation, with all of its wild imagery, is nothing more than a metaphor for the liturgy of the Christian Church. The death of many in the text could simply mean those people letting go of their old selves -- letting their old selves die -- and embracing a new life, that is, a life in Christ. The Catholic Church has always leaned toward this interpretation.</p>

32

<p>Ok.
So, some parts are methaphorical. Some, are just no longer relevant. And some must be interpreted literally no matter what, and we can by no way accept policy that goes against them. How do we know which parts are which. Or we just have to take your word for it?
By the way, God isn´t suppoused to be perfect. Why did he at anytime prescribed "bad and cruel laws"? He "grew up"?</p>

33

<p>Ok. So, some parts are methaphorical. Some, are just no longer relevant. And some must be interpreted literally no matter what...</p>

<p>Yes. </p>

<p>...and we can by no way accept policy that goes against them.</p>

<p>That's up to you. I wouldn't; you may feel different.</p>

<p>How do we know which parts are which. Or we just have to take your word for it?</p>

<p>No, not my interpretation. I try not to interpret Scripture on my own; for one thing, I am not trained in such matters. For this I look to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, which is the institution responsible for the authorship, editing, and the bestowing of canonical status on the books of the New Testament. The Christian Scriptures came from the Catholic Church, and thus it is my authority concerning the interpretation of them. Since the Catholic Church, in my Catholic view, is also the New Jerusalem -- the absolute fulfillment of Judaism on earth -- I too look to the Church for the official interpretation of the Old Testament. I do read Scripture commentaries by Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, and even agnostic/atheist textual scholars out of personal interest, but as a Catholic the only interpretation that I will accept as official is the interpretation of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. </p>

<p>The issue of authority is in a big way what separates Catholic Christianity from Protestant Christianity. In short, Protestants have no single official authority which interprets Scripture for them. Unlike Catholics, they interpret the Bible for themselves. This is why there is one Catholic Church and over 30,000 different Protestant Churches, all teaching different things about Jesus and Salvation, and most thinking that the other 29,999 are wrong and going to Hell. The Bible is a vast and often very complicated collection of books; different people will get different things from it. Thus the creation of fundamentalist movements within Protestantism like Jehovah's Witnessism, Mormonism, Seventh-Day Adventism, and countless others. None of these sects existed before the 16th century, when large groups started breaking away from the Catholic Church and began to interpret the Bible on their own. In my view, the anti-Catholic doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" -- Bible alone, with no authority -- has created nothing but chaos within Christianity. This is one of the reasons why I chose Catholicism over Protestantism when I became a Christian. I recognize the importance of authority in religion.</p>

<p>By the way, God isn´t suppoused to be perfect. Why did he at anytime prescribed "bad and cruel laws"? He "grew up"?</p>

<p>I don't know. I'm positive that the Catholic Church can explain it to you, though, if you really are curious. Do some research.</p>

34

<p>Ok. Let's ignore the issues of what reasons do we have to prefer certain autorithy to another and your church interpretation of the bible saying gay marriage is wrong to, for example, mine saying that it say it should be allowed.
And let's assume there is a good explanation for God having sometimes given "bad" rules to its followers, ordering them to do cruel things and allowing bad things while banning good ones.
How do you know the current rules are the right one? How do you know God won't came tomorrow and say gay marriage or abortion are good things?
And if rules can change any number of times, what's the point on following them? They don't reflect objective notions of good and evil, just relative ones. And the current ones happen to be outdated by, let's say, 2000 years.</p>

35

<p>Ugh. Can we please drop the religious discussion. Please? The Democrats won the House and Senate, that's a good thing.</p>

36

<p>The MSM Now: "Democrats DOMINATE both houses! Bush meets with his new masters on Capitol Hill!"</p>

<p>The MSM in October 2008: "A new study shows that Democrats actually don't have that big of a majority in either house, and most of the Republican programs are still running so that's why the world's not perfect yet etc etc etc."</p>

<p>What was Pelosi saying the day before the election, something about her only concern is that all the votes won't be counted? But she doesn't seem too worried about that now...</p>

37

<p>Bush's new masters? Please. The commander-in-chief bows to no one.</p>

<p>Aside from the reconstruction mission in Iraq -- which is far from over and is just one piece in the ongoing war on terror -- Bush has already accomplished everything he has set out to do with his presidency. No amount of traitors... er, Democrats, in either House, can reverse that.</p>

38

<p>"The commander-in-chief bows to no one"</p>

<p>Ummm, balance of power anyone?</p>

39

<p>Well... some ppl in this forum seem like the recipients of this letter, so I'll just post it:</p>

<p>"A Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives</p>

<p>November 14th, 2006</p>

<p>To My Conservative Brothers and Sisters,</p>

<p>I know you are dismayed and disheartened at the results of last week's election. You're worried that the country is heading toward a very bad place you don't want it to go. Your 12-year Republican Revolution has ended with so much yet to do, so many promises left unfulfilled. You are in a funk, and I understand.</p>

<p>Well, cheer up, my friends! Do not despair. I have good news for you. I, and the millions of others who are now in charge with our Democratic Congress, have a pledge we would like to make to you, a list of promises that we offer you because we value you as our fellow Americans. You deserve to know what we plan to do with our newfound power -- and, to be specific, what we will do to you and for you.</p>

<p>Thus, here is our Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives:</p>

<p>Dear Conservatives and Republicans,</p>

<p>I, and my fellow signatories, hereby make these promises to you:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>We will always respect you for your conservative beliefs. We will never, ever, call you "unpatriotic" simply because you disagree with us. In fact, we encourage you to dissent and disagree with us.</p></li>
<li><p>We will let you marry whomever you want, even when some of us consider your behavior to be "different" or "immoral." Who you marry is none of our business. Love and be in love -- it's a wonderful gift.</p></li>
<li><p>We will not spend your grandchildren's money on our personal whims or to enrich our friends. It's your checkbook, too, and we will balance it for you.</p></li>
<li><p>When we soon bring our sons and daughters home from Iraq, we will bring your sons and daughters home, too. They deserve to live. We promise never to send your kids off to war based on either a mistake or a lie.</p></li>
<li><p>When we make America the last Western democracy to have universal health coverage, and all Americans are able to get help when they fall ill, we promise that you, too, will be able to see a doctor, regardless of your ability to pay. And when stem cell research delivers treatments and cures for diseases that affect you and your loved ones, we'll make sure those advances are available to you and your family, too.</p></li>
<li><p>Even though you have opposed environmental regulation, when we clean up our air and water, we, the Democratic majority, will let you, too, breathe the cleaner air and drink the purer water.</p></li>
<li><p>Should a mass murderer ever kill 3,000 people on our soil, we will devote every single resource to tracking him down and bringing him to justice. Immediately. We will protect you.</p></li>
<li><p>We will never stick our nose in your bedroom or your womb. What you do there as consenting adults is your business. We will continue to count your age from the moment you were born, not the moment you were conceived.</p></li>
<li><p>We will not take away your hunting guns. If you need an automatic weapon or a handgun to kill a bird or a deer, then you really aren't much of a hunter and you should, perhaps, pick up another sport. We will make our streets and schools as free as we can from these weapons and we will protect your children just as we would protect ours.</p></li>
<li><p>When we raise the minimum wage, we will pay you -- and your employees -- that new wage, too. When women are finally paid what men make, we will pay conservative women that wage, too.</p></li>
<li><p>We will respect your religious beliefs, even when you don't put those beliefs into practice. In fact, we will actively seek to promote your most radical religious beliefs ("Blessed are the poor," "Blessed are the peacemakers," "Love your enemies," "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God," and "Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."). We will let people in other countries know that God doesn't just bless America, he blesses everyone. We will discourage religious intolerance and fanaticism -- starting with the fanaticism here at home, thus setting a good example for the rest of the world.</p></li>
<li><p>We will not tolerate politicians who are corrupt and who are bought and paid for by the rich. We will go after any elected leader who puts him or herself ahead of the people. And we promise you we will go after the corrupt politicians on our side FIRST. If we fail to do this, we need you to call us on it. Simply because we are in power does not give us the right to turn our heads the other way when our party goes astray. Please perform this important duty as the loyal opposition.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>I promise all of the above to you because this is your country, too. You are every bit as American as we are. We are all in this together. We sink or swim as one. Thank you for your years of service to this country and for giving us the opportunity to see if we can make things a bit better for our 300 million fellow Americans -- and for the rest of the world.</p>

<p>Signed,</p>

<p>Michael Moore"</p>

40

<p>
[quote]
Bush's new masters? Please. The commander-in-chief bows to no one.</p>

<p>Aside from the reconstruction mission in Iraq -- which is far from over and is just one piece in the ongoing war on terror -- Bush has already accomplished everything he has set out to do with his presidency. No amount of traitors... er, Democrats, in either House, can reverse that.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, no he hasn't. He hasn't gotten rid of terrorism...if anything, there are more terrorist attacks post-9/11 than pre-9/11. He's doubled the deficit in this country in six years...which no other president has done, BTW. We owe freaking Mexico and China! He decimated our army, he's radicalized the Iraqis who might've helped us turn Iraq into a democracy. Did he set out to do all that?</p>

<p>He's lowered taxes...for the rich. And even with that, uh, who do you think is going to pay for the war? Yeah, that's what I thought. Taxes are going to go up, not because the Dems want them to, but because somehow we have to pay for this war. We.</p>

<p>Oh, and let's not forget how he's blatantly ignored our three biggest problems: global warming, medicare, and, well, I'll let you guess the third.</p>